Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-09-23

authority from the constitution and
that the plsin and positive ai-
rection in the constitution where, IL
article 7, section 4, it says that the lands |
"shall be sold at such times End on such
terms as may be prescribed by law" con-
method of disposing of them. The Leg
islature being limited in authority to the
"sale" of lands and those lands being
dedicated by the people for a specific
purpose, with well defined restrictions
and limitations in regard to their man
sgement and disposition By the Legisla
ture, are simply trust fund and,
as in the case of all trustees,
the directions ito sel) must be
implicitly followed. The constitution
being silent on the subject of leasing the
school lands and plain, outspoken and
mandatory on the question of sale the
authority Of the Legislature was re-
stricted only TO the sale OF these lands,
and no authority existed for leasing.
Citing the maxim of constitutions law,
that the power conferred upon the Leg
lslature to make laws cannot bedelegated
to sny body or authority unless expressly
so provided in the constitution, the ap-
pellants claim that in the formation of
the land board this power was delegated
to II by the Legislature and that the land
board did legislate in various ways dur
ing its existence especially in the matter
OF classifying LANDS, Withdrawing them
from the market and otherwise CONTROL
ing them in violation of law and Ct the
constitution which says that "times and
terms of sale shall De provided by law"
Objection is made also because the lsnd
ooard, being composed OF heads Of de
partments, was in violation OF law in that
it blended the executive and legislative
departments in open violation OF consti-
tutional provision or the subject. In
fine, the objections urged are that the
Il gisla ure had no power to pass lease
law:
!. That the lew they did pass did not
prescribe regulations fixing the time and
terms of sale Or lease
2. That they delegated this authority to
the land board.
3. That the l.nd board in the exercise
of this delegated authority, did pass rules
and regulations for sale end lease, and
some that were not even in harmony with
the law giving them the authority.
4, That in the exercise of this authority.
it being legislative in it5 nature, and the
board being composed of the heads OF the
executive departments, that there was a
collection OF persons of one department
exercising powers properly belonging to
another.
3. That the action of the board is clear
ly and unquestionablY legislative in ma
ture, as evidenced by their rules and or
ders in changing the price as fixed by
law, in withdrawing from the market
lands placed there by lay, il changing
the amount q man could purchase from
seven sections es fixed by law, in pre-
scribing different and more onerou5 con
ditions precedent to purchase than those
fixed by law, in making classification OF
all the lands as agricultural, when the
law said it should be classified into agri-
cultural, pasture End timber lands.
The attorney in the case, Mt. J. B. Scar
borough, thinks he has good case end
if he is correct in his vlews the decision
by the Supreme court will be one OF the
most important ever rendered in Texas.
If the land board was an unconstitutional
body, all its acts are of course uaconsti-
tutional. Itlooks ghoulish to attack
defu2ct Institution, but perhaps there is
wisdom in so doing. The argument pre-
sented is very plausible and the result
can only be conjectured.